SanAngeloState

I fear it would have been an incineration. And don't give me this "well there's tape on rogers so bb would have magically exploited him!".

What will rivers do if we are unfortunate enough to play them in the playoffs.
Luckily, that will be in NE, hopefully they've forgotten how to catch in the cold.

BB needs to address the DL. 4 regular contributors out? This is getting a little ridiculous!

Hoodie

They might have played better overall if Rodgers had played. Sometimes I think the Pats are like the Red Sox in that they have trouble with a pitcher they don't know.

R_T26

More film on Rodgers, team more up for it....different game.

SVN

maybe the packers wouldnt have run as much with rodgers in the line and the fact that we dressed a lot of DB's who knows how it wouldve played out. Every game is different so hard to extrapolate one or the other. I wouldve also liked to have our Dline out there

PatsDeb

I don't think it would have been any worse. It's pretty obvious that the way BB covers for his D's inexperience and now injuries, is to prepare a really good game plan based on tendencies and weaknesses. No film on a back-up QB means adventures in defense.

upstater1

Beaten you 9-0.

Oh wait.

Ice_Ice_Brady

Different game. No onside kick. No gimmicky plays. No short, safe passing game and power running. Time of possession probably even.

Packers scored 27 points. Patriots won. Hard to imagine Rodgers would have been head and shoulders better in terms of giving the Pack a better chance.

Palm Beach Pats Fan

The D-line injuries caught up to us. Hopefully Wright, Brace, Prior, etc, get 100% soon. Wilfork was clogging the middle by himself, for the most past, and you can't ask him to carry that load for 40 minutes in time of possession.

__________________
It is what it is, so just go out there and do your job!

Rob0729

Who knows if Rodgers would have done better? There are a number of factors that go into a game and sometimes upgrading a position even the position of QB doesn't neccessarily mean an exponential increase in production.

Sorry, but lack of a book on a guy is a valid excuse. There are a lot of first time QBs who come out of the gate on fire and then teams catch up to them. Look at Sanchez last year, he was far better the month of September than he was for the rest of the season. The Pats have in recent years struggled against inexperience QBs because of the game plan.

Also, McCarthy came into the game with the attitude that he had nothing to lose with Flynn at QB. He threw a lot of things out there that he probably would never have done if he had Rodgers at QB and it started on the opening kick off. I doubt the Packers do an onside kick if Rodgers was there.

I also wonder how much this young defense bought into the fact that this game was an automatic win with Flynn at QB. The defense got pretty good in the fourth quarter, but they seemed to be shocked early in the game.


Rodgers could have gotten 600 yards and 6 TDs vs. the Pats or he may not have done any better or even done worse than Flynn. You put Rodgers in there and the Pats come into the game with a different gameplan, the young players may be more hyped up for the game, McCarthy doesn't get as agressive with his strategy, etc.

Consent

Rodgers not playing actually benefited the packs.n
Lack of quality film on Flynn made it difficult for BB to sufficiently prepare his guys.
I hope you didn't expect to just figure out a guy starting for the first time in the nfl.
If Peyton couldn't beat us, what made you think Rodgers would have?